Considering
1. The track "FellowshipAdmin" is defined as "Origin for managing the composition of the fellowship." in [code](https://paritytech.github.io/polkadot-sdk/master/westend_runtime/governance/pallet_custom_origins/enum.Origin.html), [wiki](https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-polkadot-opengov-origins), and [gov portals](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/tracks/13)
2. The remark in [1186](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1186) asks to "Set the max member count for Head Ambassadors in the Ambassador Collective to 10", which directly relates to the composition of the Fellowship in question.
3. Additionally, no on-chain agreement or consensus states that such changes must go through Root or WFC. Compare this summary of existing [Polkadot legislation](https://opengovwatch.notion.site/Polkadot-Legislation-741e0f555c0144d88bd292e011a9a22a?pvs=74). It should rather be assumed that plausible tracks are chosen. Fellowship Admin is a plausible track for administrating fellowships/collectives.

It follows that the claim of the current proposal 1188 is invalid and should thus be rejected.

[@Alice und Bob](1hFmn2CuqXqxHgKDqqs2xRBpsPkiRXzJfcLbfDgsW7qgmpA-polkadot) 

Maybe it's the right track but it still should be cancelled for the bad intentions behind it, trying to eliminate community vote by proposing to remove ELECTED HAs based on a single/small group of people preference.

If this proposal was with good intentions, it would just ask to vote again on NEW top 10 HAs and let the COMMUNITY DECIDE who it should be, but it didn't. It tried to bypass it with this proposal and therefore should be cancelled imho.
   

Michiko-san complains that people don't follow the rules :)

lol

https://x.com/joepetrowski/status/1840099745093550159

[@Alice und Bob](1hFmn2CuqXqxHgKDqqs2xRBpsPkiRXzJfcLbfDgsW7qgmpA-polkadot) 

The marked text you shared also says it's allowed suggesting WHAT candidate to remove? or just removing the number of seats?

I couldn't find it in the next - could you help me here? 

Based on your "lol" reaction and the twitt you shared, it's very clear you don't understand the problem here, thinking the criticism is for reducing the seats, while actually it's your request WHO to reduce
  

every time I hear about this today, I am getting one more shot of excitement

While the question of whether this is the correct right track for this type of Ref can be questioned, the wider point about cancelling Ref 1186 still stands: This is the wrong approach of doing things because it is deeply undemocratic. My full response here:
https://forum.polkadot.network/t/reduce-the-set-of-head-ambassadors-and-start-an-effective-ambassador-program/10177/16

Ambassador program in its current format was approved with root referendum especially the number of 21 ambassadors. If you want to reduce the number of ambassadors you should either go on root or WFC. This is not the correct track

index

Rejected

Submitted

DecisionDepositPlaced

DecisionStarted

referendum_canceller

Canceling referendum 1186

root

whitelisted_caller

wish_for_change

staking_admin

treasurer

lease_admin

fellowship_admin

general_admin

auction_admin

referendum_killer

small_tipper

big_tipper

small_spender

medium_spender

big_spender

Origin able to dispatch a whitelisted call.

Origin for signaling that the network wishes for some change

Origin able to cancel slashes and manage minimum commission.

Origin for spending up to 10,000,000 DOT from the treasury as well as generally administering it.

Origin for managing the composition of the fellowship.

Origin able to spend around 250 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 1,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 10,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 100,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend up to 1,000,000 DOT from the treasury at once.